Free Will, Free Won't?

[The Reality Salesman01]

But that could be test as anything that doesn't have freewill may not understand what the concept of freewill means. So say an android or something would just stare at you blankly if they just followed their set programs and if we didn't have freewill then we wouldn't be discussing it because it wouldn't occur to us.

2 things.

1. Being able to comprehend a concept, doesn't make the opinions offered in regards to it, empirically true.

Example: Being able to understand the question: "Is Rap the best kind of music?" Doesn't validate the answer given in response to it.

2. The Android will respond with whatever answer you program it to provide. Just as it unaware of the choice in default language it uses to form its response. If the data given to the droid is consistent with free-will, the answers to the questions regarding it, if asked in the right way, will coincide with the data. In this sense, people are similar, but we can learn to challenge a programmed response. What separates us, is that a computer must operate in accordance with it.

These concepts are a result of a human being's experience of reality, and the thoughts which are inspired by it; so are computers. Looking to computers for answers to problems created by human thought is putting the cart before the horse. [edit] (I had them in the wrong order, no pun intended)

---

And I realize that when I say "we can learn to challenge..." It seems as though I'm supporting the concept of being free. I'm not. Because the changes that affect our operating system do not occur consciously, and the conscious mind is where the notion of free-will resides, the changes in the mind seem incompatible with the concept of free-will. I was only eluding to the human mind being able to process concepts of an abstract nature. There is no evidence to support that the intellectual plain of awareness associated with concept of free-will contributes in any way to the change in ones position toward a particular idea. The plain of awareness responsible for that operates apart from our conscious awareness of the effects it produces.

---

As for the OP, the evidence provided by those experiments, while interesting, is not necessary to dispute the common notion of Free-Will. The origins of the thoughts that occur in consciousnesses, appear without any conscious coaxing of their existence! Sam Harris does a great job of illustrating this in his book, and to avoid plagiarizing the whole thing, I've posted one of the lectures he gave upon releasing his book. Pretty cool stuff. I find the topic very interesting.

[Whateverist]

The idea of Free Will seems to stem from the notion that we are the conscious author of our thoughts, which is demonstrably false. Being merely the source of the thoughts isn't at all what is normally thought of when discussing free-will. It's the conscious agent part that gives rise to the notion of Free Will. The thoughts coming from your brain, isn't enough to justify taking credit for the latter event of becoming consciously aware of them. If that were the case, one might as well feel guilty for catching a cold, after-all, had their white blood cells (which are also equally a part of them) not let their guard down, they'd still be well! Being "free" to do as you wish is contingent upon your wishes, and that which has molded them. Our decisions are determined by previous events and processes, the evidence is in favor of determinism. This is not to be confused with fatalism, which suggests we're doomed to a particular fate. Being aware that Free Will is an illusion has been shown to bring about morally dishonest behavior in some test subjects. However, if those people already have the mind of somebody that operates honestly only because they will be held accountable for their actions, then the experience of having free will removed from them may seem like the excuse they were looking for to un-censor their deeper desires. Imagine the different ways people would behave if they were given the super-power of invisibility! People are wired different. Some people would behave in a manner consistent with society's laws, and others would operate on their own accord. Remember The Emperor? He would never walk around the streets naked under normal conditions. Once convinced that he was wearing some nice threads, he had no problem throwing his inhibitions to the wind! Whether he realized it or not, he WAS naked, and he was either the type of person that could be convinced to walk around naked, or he wasn't. Similarly, the common notion of free will seems to be debunked, and you either are the type of person that will act morally, or you're not.

Well I made it in about 12 minutes. I'd go further but time is an issue right now. I just think the answer can't be that we have no free will .. anymore than it can be true that we have total free will. Of course we don't. But sometimes we do. For the most part, the less we have riding on a decision, the more freedom we have.

The larger the stake, the more driven we are to act coherently for what really matters to us. If my kid is wondering off the curb into traffic, my action requires no deliberation and is almost immune to deliberation. I'm just moving toward the child at maximum speed without any choice in the matter. I have no conscious vote, nor any veto.

If you offer me a drink, I'll probably just have what you're having. But if you insist I choose from what you have on hand, I could choose almost any of them most likely. If it doesn't matter, it is pretty likely that whatever I consciously choose isn't just a rationalization for some deeper barely apprehended motivation. I'm not always compelled toward one or the other choice. When the choice is imposed, I'm all the more likely to choose freely. Not caring is freedom.

But the deeper motivations which compel some of my choices are not really 'shackles'. They aren't imposed from without, they're imposed from within. It isn't that "I" have any reason to choose to act in a way that is incoherent for who I am. Sometimes I think the standard of those who argue against free will, is that if we can't dispassionately and consciously choose between all conceivable actions, then we are not free. But that amounts to being free to have no intrinsic identity whatsoever. If the only way to be free is to be anyone and no one, well I wouldn't choose that sort of freedom anyway. For me, it is no loss of freedom if I am free to be me.

I'm pretty sure there is an irresolvable paradox here.

[Zone]

2 things.

1. Being able to comprehend a concept, doesn't make the opinions offered in regards to it, empirically true.

In order to have a concept of freewill you would first have to understand what not having freewill would mean. There wouldn't be a reason for something that had no freewill ever being able to form a concept of itself having no freewill it just wouldn't think about it. So that fact that we do to begin with would be the indicator that we have. It doesn't have to involve anything religious or supernatural it could just be a result of the intelligence being able to override biological function to some degree.

Example: Being able to understand the question: "Is Rap the best kind of music?" Doesn't validate the answer given in response to it.

You would have the freewill to decide whether you personally like rap music I don't think the choice is made for you somehow. You may well be influenced to like it by your culture or whatever but you can override it. Or perhaps you could like it when you're young and when you're older realize that's it's shit. That's a conscious choice being made there.

2. The Android will respond with whatever answer you program it to provide. Just as it unaware of the choice in default language it uses to form its response. If the data given to the droid is consistent with free-will, the answers to the questions regarding it, if asked in the right way, will coincide with the data. In this sense, people are similar, but we can learn to challenge a programmed response. What separates us, is that a computer must operate in accordance with it.

You would have to program the android to give a human like reaction to the question. Though humans aren't made and programmed that way. What I bolded is where freewill comes in.

These concepts are a result of a human being's experience of reality, and the thoughts which are inspired by it; so are computers. Looking to computers for answers to problems created by human thought is putting the cart before the horse.

Computers are tools that humans made and designed for a specific function while human developed naturally out self replicating organic material. What you can't do tell a computer to think for itself as it's only an extension of yourself, you tell it what to think and do.

And I realize that when I say "we can learn to challenge..." It seems as though I'm supporting the concept of being free. I'm not. Because the changes that affect our operating system do not occur consciously, and the conscious mind is where the notion of free-will resides, the changes in the mind seem incompatible with the concept of free-will. I was only eluding to the human mind being able to process concepts of an abstract nature. There is no evidence to support that the intellectual plain of awareness associated with concept of free-will contributes in any way to the change in ones position toward a particular idea. The plain of awareness responsible for that operates apart from our conscious awareness of the effects it produces.

You can only argue in defense of freewill as if you try to argue against it you're claiming to not have your own opinion or the ability to think for yourself which would invalidate your position. So we don't have free choice to not think we have the free choice.

[Whateverist]

You can only argue in defense of freewill as if you try to argue against it you're claiming to not have your own opinion or the ability to think for yourself which would invalidate your position. So we don't have free choice to not think we have the free choice.

So you're challenging whether our thought processes are somehow an exception to the freedom we are said not to have. Are we free to recognize the better argument? Or are we constrained to find convincing that which we are already predisposed to believe. (You don't have to spend too much time on these forums to recognize the latter to be true.)

[ManMachine]

Or are we constrained to find convincing that which we are already predisposed to believe. (You don't have to spend too much time on these forums to recognize the latter to be true.)

Cognitive bias, this is a horse of a different colour.

I discovered that wiki actually has a good resource on this. have a look, it's great for easy reference. (Plus, it is easy to spot these biases in the forum as you pointed out).

List of cognitive biases


MM

[The Reality Salesman01]

you're claiming to not have your own opinion or the ability to think for yourself which would invalidate your position. So we don't have free choice to not think we have the free choice.

I'm sorry for not making myself clear enough. I am not saying that I don't have an opinion. I'm saying that the opinion I have is determined by past events and experiences. I have no control over the experiences, nor my perception of them. My perception of any given event is the product of previous experiences equally beyond my control. My opinion at this very moment is the product of all of those variables, hence, it is determined by them. You seem to think that I am arguing for fatalism, which I am not. I am saying that, at every moment, we all act in a manner that is consistent with who we are, and could not act any differently. The moment we act, that deciscion was determined by factors beyond your control. The origin of the thoughts you use to process the information that informs each deciscion are equally mysterious as they appear into consciousness.

While I agree that we can change, I believe that my conscious experience of that change is more accurately a witness to it, and not the agent in control of it.

The notion of Free-Will comes from how we identify ourselves with a specific channel of information. Upon closer inspection, we can see that we are no more in control over that flow of information, than we are over the 100 trillion bacteria that carry out necessary functions within our bodies, and are just as much a part of me as my subconscious. If I cannot control the agenda of my spleen, I cannot be held accountable for when it malfunctions. It's creepy to think about, but, the same argument can be made for our subconscious mind, and it is our subconscious that feeds the conscious.

Are you free to choose that which does not occur to you to choose?

Are you free to think that which does not occur to you in thought?

Are you free to choose that which you are unaware of as an option?

Where is the freedom? Again, all of this is contingent upon what is commonly understood about the notion of free-will. That our conscious-self, is the source of our thoughts and decisions. Don't use a psychological fact to satisfy a philosophical problem.

---

If the only way to be free is to be anyone and no one, well I wouldn't choose that sort of freedom anyway. For me, it is no loss of freedom if I am free to be me.

I'm pretty sure there is an irresolvable paradox here.

You may be right sir. I feel like my experience of self, upon closer examination, seems to be more accurately described as a witness to experience rather than the agent in control. I find it fascinating that I can still muster a sense of identity from it. The sense of self I notice just seems to be much bigger than I regularly recognize. The conscious-me is just the tip of the iceberg. These descriptions are really only necessary when trying to nail down a two dimensional description of who we are, but I just think that a deterministic description is a bit more accurate than the illusion of being completely free to do any ole thing in the world!

[Zone]

So you're challenging whether our thought processes are somehow an exception to the freedom we are said not to have. Are we free to recognize the better argument? Or are we constrained to find convincing that which we are already predisposed to believe. (You don't have to spend too much time on these forums to recognize the latter to be true.)

You have the problem of something that has no freewill coming to an understanding of freewill without the use of freewill which doesn't quite follow.

I'm sorry for not making myself clear enough. I am not saying that I don't have an opinion. I'm saying that the opinion I have is determined by past events and experiences.

It's the same difference and what I meant. But with freewill you will be able to react to and shape the events in your life rather than be determined by them. You can still be influenced by them of course it depends what you chose to do with the influence.

I have no control over the experiences, nor my perception of them.

You do but you seem to be doing something a bit funny in claiming to have no free volition of your own.

My perception of any given event is the product of previous experiences equally beyond my control.

You control events to a limited degree and your reaction to the events to a greater degree. It may take some work to become fully self mastered though.

My opinion at this very moment is the product of all of those variables, hence, it is determined by them.

Influenced not determined.

You seem to think that I am arguing for fatalism, which I am not.

No I'm arguing against what you're saying here. What are you basing this assertion upon? Why you want to even make the assertion is beyond me.

I am saying that, at every moment, we all act in a manner that is consistent with who we are, and could not act any differently.

We could if we wanted to?

The moment we act, that deciscion was determined by factors beyond your control.

Influenced by factors beyond your control not determined. Where are you getting all this from?

The origin of the thoughts you use to process the information that informs each deciscion are equally mysterious as they appear into consciousness.

Just say you're the origin you exist don't you?

While I agree that we can change, I believe that my conscious experience of that change is more accurately a witness to it, and not the agent in control of it.

Could you choose to believe otherwise? If you do that proves my point, unless you're saying I would be controlling your mind by making a suggestion.

The notion of Free-Will comes from how we identify ourselves with a specific channel of information. Upon closer inspection, we can see that we are no more in control over that flow of information, than we are over the 100 trillion bacteria that carry out necessary functions within our bodies, and are just as much a part of me as my subconscious. If I cannot control the agenda of my spleen, I cannot be held accountable for when it malfunctions. It's creepy to think about, but, the same argument can be made for our subconscious mind, and it is our subconscious that feeds the conscious.

Well there is a lot going on that influences you yes. How you go from that to complete determinism you're not saying.

Are you free to choose that which does not occur to you to choose?

You can choose your reaction to it.

Are you free to think that which does not occur to you in thought?

It depends if you want to or not?

Are you free to choose that which you are unaware of as an option?

You have freewill within the limits the sphere of what you know and are but that doesn't mean you're entirely determined and without control.

Where is the freedom? Again, all of this is contingent upon what is commonly understood about the notion of free-will. That our conscious-self, is the source of our thoughts and decisions. Don't use a psychological fact to satisfy a philosophical problem.

You're the source of everything you think and do under the influence of numerous factors. You haven't been determined by anything, restricted in certain ways perhaps. You can't jump out of a window and decide you'll like to use your freewill to fly. You can use your freewill to jump out of the window and gravity takes care of the rest for you.

[The Reality Salesman01]

You have the problem of something that has no freewill coming to an understanding of freewill without the use of freewill which doesn't quite follow.

The free-part seems to be something that's giving you a hard time. Everybody has different barriers that prevent them from processing information the same way. One's contemplation of a concept either occurs to them as something worth thinking about, or it doesn't. The factors that give this concept credence to the individual are beyond the individual's control, and do not originate in the conscious mind which is where one's sense of self comes from.

The concept occurs to your consciousness (You did not choose to think it)

Your subconscious determines your position on the concept (This occurs apart from your conscious mind being aware of it)

Your subconscious mind is molded by genetics, environment, exposure to specific social behavior, and life experiences. (You had no control over any of these defining factors which molded your subconscious)

Your conscious mind/sense of self considers it "free" to do as it wishes. Yet, everything that informs it is, has been, and will forever be outside of your conscious mind's control at that moment. At each moment, your behavior is determined by what you are at that moment, and you could not be any different or you would be in a different universe! The phenomena of reflection does not affirm its offspring to be born from a free and unrestricted source. It is an illusion.

[Zone]

The free-part seems to be something that's giving you a hard time. Everybody has different barriers that prevent them from processing information the same way. One's contemplation of a concept either occurs to them as something worth thinking about, or it doesn't. The factors that give this concept credence to the individual are beyond the individual's control, and do not originate in the conscious mind which is where one's sense of self comes from.

You are your conscious mind and that's what you use to decide whatever it is you decide under influence of whatever is influencing you. You can't control the influences only your reaction toward them. In some instances it may take some effort to nullify a reaction toward a certain influence that's self restraint. That's an important trait to master there, like the Eastern religions teach but you don't need the supernatural to do this of course.

The concept occurs to your consciousness (You did not choose to think it)

You choose the reaction toward it. You may be getting the stimulus to punch your boss in the face or grab a fit woman's ass but you decide to bypass it.

Your subconscious determines your position on the concept (This occurs apart from your conscious mind being aware of it)

It just feeds you with a list of suggestions. You decide what to do with it.

Your subconscious mind is molded by genetics, environment, exposure to specific social behavior, and life experiences. (You had no control over any of these defining factors which molded your subconscious)

Molded not determined, it's all very interactive. It's like modifying your characters stats using experience points in an RPG game.

Your conscious mind/sense of self considers it "free" to do as it wishes. Yet, everything that informs it is, has been, and will forever be outside of your conscious mind's control at that moment.

Yes but it doesn't follow that you're determined by any of this only influenced by it.

At each moment, your behavior is determined by what you are at that moment, and you could not be any different or you would be in a different universe! [quote]

I don't think there are any other universes we can be in there is just the one and we're in it.

[quote]The phenomena of reflection does not affirm its offspring to be born from a free and unrestricted source. It is an illusion.

No it isn't.

[The Reality Salesman01]

We could if we wanted to?

That statement is non-sensical. Give an example of that occuring. One choosing something different because they wanted to. That is mere post-hoc conjecture. To say that you could have done differently is no different than saying you could have existed in a different universe.

Just say you're the origin you exist don't you?

Do you refer to your self, are your white blood cells the thing you have in mind, or is it a specific channel of information that occurs in consciousness? If they stopped performing, and you developped bone-marrow cancer, would your conscious sense of self be responsible? No, you would be a victem. But those white blood-cells are you, right? So, to say that the products of your subconscious are examples of free decisions made by YOU, then you are guilty of decieving yourself. Stop at that point, and re-examine what you mean when you refer to YOU, and be honest about the actual source of the thoughts that occur to it.


Your subconsciousness is you. Yes, this is a psychological fact. Your kidney's are you as well. Another fact. But neither of these facts assist in anyway when mulling over the concept of free-will which resides in consciousness.